OPINION & EDITORIAL
FFRF campaign unacceptable stunt
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joelle Parks:
- Affirmative action has no place at collegiate level (April 13, 2006)
- Local media expedite petty politics (November 29, 2006)
- Campus safety needs high priority (November 21, 2005)
- Obese must admit own fault (April 20, 2006)
- Board of Regents' new disciplinary policy overdue, welcome (December 13, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Atheist symbol deserves Capitol space (December 9, 2005)
- The Grinch who stole American happiness (September 20, 2001)
- Bah humbug! Get that goddamn evergreen out of my Capitol! (November 29, 2007)
- Beckstrom wrong on religious case (September 20, 2005)
- Rhetoric polarizes holiday season (December 6, 2005)
by Joelle Parks
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Growing up, I was always afraid that it was going to be the Scrooge or the Grinch who stole Christmas. This belief remained as I grew into adulthood, until I realized that it is not Scrooge or the Grinch that I should be scared of, but instead the Freedom From Religion Foundation. This Madison based group is not only determined to ruin Christmas, but also Hanukkah and any other religious celebrations that occur during this season.
As soon at the giant Christmas tree that beautifully decorates our State Capitol was put up, so was a sign meant to spoil the holiday season. This blemish, carefully placed amid holiday decorations in the first floor rotunda area, reads: "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
It is one thing to disagree with something that other people believe in and a complete other to publicly criticize people for their beliefs at a time of celebration.
This sign should not be recognized as a plea for separation of church and state, but rather as an attack on religious holidays. Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, told the Badger Herald, "We felt that it would be important to have a sign saying to keep church and state separate." The constant debate of whether or not church and state should be separated has crossed the line this time.
It was acceptable when they demanded that religion in public classrooms should be eliminated because it may make some people uncomfortable. It was still acceptable when they demanded that religion be removed from politics. It is absolutely unacceptable that a group, who lobbies to make people feel more comfortable in public places, would make so many people feel uncomfortable in a public place.
State Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, told the Badger Herald he disagreed with the placement of the sign at the capitol.
"Apparently Scrooge left his sign in the capitol and I wish Gov. Doyle would remove it," Rep. Suder said. "I think it is unnecessary for the Freedom From Religion Foundation to attack Christmas."
He also believes that the sign "has demeaned people of all faiths" and sends a bad message to everyone who visits the capitol, especially children.
"We have had groups or individuals come down who have been very disgusted with the sign; they find [the FFRF] message to be both appalling and very disturbing," Rep. Suder said, adding he encourages people to post "pro-Christmas" signs or signs promoting their own religion in response. "Most people ignore it, but it does disturb some, and it's unfortunate that this group has to continue to promote their agenda against all religions."
It is understandable why this sign has been targeted several times in the past. In the 10 years that the sign has been visible, it has been vandalized and stolen.
At this time of celebration, regardless of what the celebration is for, people should remember what is really important in life. The holiday season is about gathering with loved ones to celebrate the closing of one year and the beginning of the next. Regardless of religion, the majority of people celebrate the season in some respect. It is about helping others. Demoralizing other people's beliefs is hardly the definition of goodwill.
Joelle Parks (jparks@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 7:51am):
This sign is simply an expression of belief like any other holiday sign. It doesn't demonize anyone.
If you believe that it "demeans people of all faiths." Then do you accept that religious signs demean people of no faith?
If anyone is demonized, it is the people who choose reason over superstition. Your justification of vandalism is absurd. If atheists vandalized the religious signs, you'd be up in arms.
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 10:13am):
For how many years has the religious community condemned the non-believer? I think the sign states the truth. You can have your faith/superstition if you want to but I believe the definition of faith is "the belief in something that you know is bullshit".
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 10:39am):
But is this not the price we pay for living in a pluralistic society? Personally, I think the sign is 100% incorrect. It's trite, smug, and just plain wrong.
However, if the Capitol is going to host decorations associated with a religious holiday, then in order to abide with the establishment clause (because, let's face it, when the government puts up trees as a symbol of the birth of Jesus Christ, that's establishment) is it not obligated to put up decorations of other faiths? It can't discriminate against minority views just because a majority of Wisconsin residents are Christian.
Rep. Suder is right (which is something I don't say a lot). If people in the Capitol don't like it, they may put up their own signs. That's what I'd do if I worked at the Capitol.
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 10:56am):
"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
You can't argue with the facts. Religion causes more pain, death and destuction than any other meme.
But then as the prophet Homer sayeth:
"Facts! You can prove anything with facts."
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 1:50pm):
Dear Ms. Parks,
First, I would like to note that while I am an atheist, I am not a member of (nor do I claim to represent) the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
In your article of 8 December 2005 entitled "FFRF campaign unacceptable stunt," you make a distinction between disagreement with the beliefs of another and the public airing of this disagreement, articulating a strong discomfort with the latter:
"It is one thing to disagree with something that other people believe in and a complete other to publicly criticize people for their beliefs at a time of celebration."
I would like to take a moment to parse this statement because I am somewhat confused about what you find troublesome in the posting of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Is it the public nature of the criticism? I would sincerely hope that is not the case. Every day journalists report (and, when warranted, comment upon) the news, regardless of whether or not their reporting causes discomfort. Our society relies upon free and open dialogue despite political and other pressures; this is one of major factors in the success of a democracy. If the FFRF's posting were intended to cause discomfort merely for the sake of discomfort, that would indeed be unethical. However, if the discomfort created by that posting has caused people to think critically about their beliefs, then it has served a useful purpose.
In your previous statement, you also claim that the FFRF's posting "publicly criticize[s] people for their beliefs." I would disagree with that assessment. While the FFRF is indeed engaging in criticism, their target is not a group (or groups) of people, but rather a set of ideas. This distinction is vital. If particular people were the recipients of an ad hominem attack, those individuals would be perfectly justified in taking offense. However, the posting's language is quite careful in its aim. In fact, it would be entirely counterproductive for the FFRF to insult those whom it is trying to persuade.
Returning to your statement once again, I also noticed that you qualified it with "at a time of celebration." I am not entirely sure what you mean by that. Is there a particular time that would be more appropriate for the FFRF's posting? Surely you do not expect the FFRF to view religious holidays as a time of celebration when their argument (whether or not you agree with it) is that religion is both false and harmful. Once again, we come to the question of whether it is more important to tell the truth (as best we understand it) or avoid causing offense - a question which is admittedly not always an easy one to answer. Nevertheless, I would ask that you keep in mind that public Christmas displays such as the one in the Wisconsin state capitol could give non-Christians just as much discomfort as the FFRF's posting gives to religious believers.
And finally I would like to comment on the last two sentences of your article: "It [the season] is about helping others. Demoralizing other people's beliefs is hardly the definition of goodwill." Here you argue that the FFRF has taken up the position of Scrooge, attempting to ruin everyone's fun. However, I would argue that the primary goal of the FFRF in criticizing religion (whether or not you accept their position) is to improve people's lives. Such a goal is motivated by a great deal of goodwill, which is (as you say) what the holiday season is about.
Although I can understand why you might be tempted to view the FFRF as a latter-day Ebenezer Scrooge, I would suggest that it might be more productive to read their posting not an assault on holiday cheer, but as an attempt to promulgate (what they view as) essential truths in order to better our society. In the end, you may disagree with their message, but that does not negate their right to post it.
Yours sincerely,
Jason Gersh
Chapel Hill, NC
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 2:13pm):
Congrats: you probably have a nice career lined up at Fox news.
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 3:52pm):
Joelle, there is no Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny is also fake.
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 5:37pm):
What next? Ya gonna tell me there's no Tooth Fairy?
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 5:52pm):
It does kind of creep me out that the central idea of Christianity involves human/god sacrifice and their big ritual revolves around symbolic cannibalism of said human/god.
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 5:53pm):
Q. Who stole Christmas?
A. The Grinch
B. The Scrooge
C. A leather glove
D. A man with a mustache
Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 7:02pm):
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
Thomas Jefferson
Anonymous (December 10, 2005 @ 6:31pm):
Sophomore... or sophomoric? Parks doesn't seem to understand the importance of free speech, including for speech one doesn't agree with.
The sign is an example of private speech on public land. FFRF has as much right to say "there are no gods" in public as Christians do to say "there is a God" in public. The attempts to compare this to government speech in schools is ridiculous. People do not have a right to not be made uncomfortable by private speech; they do have a right not to feel like they are being told that they are second-class citizens by the state.
The FFRF sign is an example of the first; state endorsed prayers in school classes is an example of the second. If people can't stand public criticism of their beliefs, they shouldn't publicize those beliefs so much.
If Parks is going to major in journalism, she has a lot to learn first.
Anonymous (December 13, 2005 @ 2:04pm):
It is somewhat ironic that a sophmore would put forth such a sophmoric treatise regarding a very serious issue. Religion has never been removed from classrooms or politics. The only thing being removed is the government endorsement of religion, which hopefully you understand is unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals on which this country was founded. I think this sign is more appropriate than ever in a state that is contemplating a state amendment to ban gay marriage. Religious bigotry is certainly nothing new in the history of America, unfortunately it continues to thrive all over this nation.
Anonymous (December 14, 2005 @ 8:15pm):
It would seem that Ms.Joelle Parks finds no problem with christians demanding more rights than non-believers.
This is the first of the execrable features of faith such as this.
The faithful claim the god-given right to proselytise and evangelise the non-believer yet will they countenance the same reciprocal rights to the non-believer?
NOT....ON....YOUR....LIFE.
Ms.Parks has a deficiency in attitude that would bar her from achieving respected status.
Warren Glover
Sydney
Australia
Anonymous (January 1, 2006 @ 6:09pm):
You said "It is understandable why this sign has been targeted several times in the past. In the 10 years that the sign has been visible, it has been vandalized and stolen." Is this your way of justifying it? Please, explain WHY you think it's "understandable".
So, would it be understandable if overt christian displays were vandalized? No one would bat an eye? And what gives the government the privilege of promoting a specific religious point of view?
manfred koehler (May 10, 2006 @ 2:09pm):
As a member of the Freedom From Reloigion Foundation (FFRF), I take issue with Joelle Parks` column of Dec. 8, 2005. The FFRF does not begrudge anyone his/her religious beliefs. We just want there to be an understanding that religion s/b practiced in a proper location and not in a secular governmental (taxpayer-funded) location. Let`s keep the separation of Church and State, as proclaimed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison alive. Most of the conflicts in the world today can be traced to differences in religious beliefs.
